I think all of the directors I've worked with are mostly curious about the time I had on 'Eyes Wide Shut.' They really just want to know about it. They're all fans of Kubrick.
I'm not so bothered by the audition process anymore; in fact, I use it. It's a time for the actor to actually get to the know the director and the producers a little bit, too.
The thing that fascinates me is that the way I came to film and television is extinct. Then there were gatekeepers, it was prohibitively expensive to make a film, to be a director you had to be an entrepreneur to raise money.
I would say that the directors that I've liked the most are all curious in nature - curious thinkers. They're all big questioners, I would say, first and foremost.
The program director at a radio station, by the way, is not the superstar. If he was a superstar, he'd be out creating songs, but he's not. But he wants to act like he has control and power.
I have so much respect for directors. It's a tremendous amount of pressure; you have to keep steadfast and keep what you know is right.
It's sad - it's sad for us old enough to remember when directors ruled, and films were substantially better than they are today. But it's hard to argue with those kinds of grosses.
Historically the director has been the key creative element in a film and we must maintain that. We must protect that, in spite of the fact that there is new technology that's continually trying to erode that.
The first and primary requirement for me in a director that I'd want to work with is: do they love writing, and do they love the collaboration process with writers?
I'm definitely one of those actresses who comes to a set knowing how I want to do a scene, and I definitely love input from my directors and my writers.
I think I always try to be accommodating and open and available and proving for my director. I love to give as many takes as they want. I love to give them as many choices as they want.
I love writing. Given a choice, after directing for all these years, and if given an army of talented directors, I would not direct at all.
It's often the case with directors that they don't like to share credit, which is the case of Stanley. He would prefer just A Film By Stanley Kubrick including music and everything.
Originally a record producer more or less hired a bunch of professionals to participate in a recording session, the performers and the technicians, and a music director was put in charge. That directly related to a film producer's job.
There are still people who have an issue working with a woman director. Women can be viewed as 'difficult' even though they work in the same way as men.
Actors look for characters. If they read a well-written character, and if they think the director's not an idiot, they're going to sign up and do some acting.
In theatre, there's the director, the writer, and below them the actor. In film, it's the actors who are most important. That goes against the grain for me.
Directors have a tendency to use their hands like orchestra conductors. They don't realize that the actor is looking at their faces, anyway.
I've worked with a lot of directors who really don't have a sense of what the hell they want.
I always think that a director who knows about the technical side, but cares about the acting performances and casting as well, is ahead of the game.
I couldn't be a director because I couldn't put up with the actors. I don't have the patience. Why, I'd probably kill the actors. Not to mention some of the beautiful actresses.
